Home › Research › Biomarkers
COVID-19 in older adults: Retrospective cohort study in a tertiary hospital in Japan
Sano T, Kimizuka Y, Fujikura Y, Hisada T, Watanabe C, Suematsu R, Izumi K, Sugiura H et al.. Geriatrics & gerontology international, 2020-09-13
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Aim We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, treatment and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, in particular older patients, admitted to tertiary and partner hospitals in Saitama, Japan. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to tertiary and partner hospitals in Saitama, Japan. Twenty-six patients with COVID-19 were categorized into two groups, i.e., older (≥75 years) and younger adults (≤74 years). We evaluated the clinical characteristics, comorbidities, symptoms, laboratory test results, treatments and outcomes of the patients. Results The majority of the older patients had comorbidities, such as dementia, cardiovascular disease and bone fractures. Comorbidities were significantly more frequent in older patients than younger patients. No association was found between age and body temperature or the incidence of respiratory failure. White blood cell count was significantly lower in older patients (P = 0.018) and the decrease in lymphocytes was greater in younger patients (P = 0.009). Computed tomography (CT) of all patients showed non-segmental, peripherally dominant ground-glass opacities consistent with COVID-19 pneumonia. In older patients, antiviral drugs, anticoagulants and anti-inflammatory drugs were administered on a compassionate use basis. The difference in mortality between the older and the younger patients was not statistically significant. Conclusions In older patients, typical clinical symptoms and blood test changes were often absent; however, CT always contained typical findings of COVID-19, suggesting that CT may be a useful diagnostic tool. Our report illustrates that appropriate treatment, taking patient background into consideration, may improve their condition regardless of age. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2020; 20: 1044-1049.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Sano, T., Kimizuka, Y., Fujikura, Y., Hisada, T., Watanabe, C., Suematsu, R., et al. (2020). COVID-19 in older adults: Retrospective cohort study in a tertiary hospital in Japan. Geriatrics & gerontology international. https://doi.org/10.1111/ggi.14034
Vancouver
Sano T, Kimizuka Y, Fujikura Y, Hisada T, Watanabe C, Suematsu R, et al. COVID-19 in older adults: Retrospective cohort study in a tertiary hospital in Japan. Geriatrics & gerontology international. 2020. doi:10.1111/ggi.14034. PMID: 32924229.
BibTeX
@article{sano2020-32924229,
author = {Sano, T. and Kimizuka, Y. and Fujikura, Y. and Hisada, T. and Watanabe, C. and Suematsu, R. and Izumi, K. and Sugiura, H. and others},
title = {{COVID-19 in older adults: Retrospective cohort study in a tertiary hospital in Japan}},
journal = {Geriatrics \& gerontology international},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1111/ggi.14034},
pmid = {32924229},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/ggi.14034}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- We evaluated the clinical characteristics, comorbidities, symptoms, laboratory test results, treatments and outcomes of the patients.
- Results The majority of the older patients had comorbidities, such as dementia, cardiovascular disease and bone fractures.
- Comorbidities were significantly more frequent in older patients than younger patients.
- White blood cell count was significantly lower in older patients (P = 0.018) and the decrease in lymphocytes was greater in younger patients (P = 0.009).
- The difference in mortality between the older and the younger patients was not statistically significant.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 38/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Geriatrics & gerontology international) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 32924229) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 22 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 38 out of 100. |
| Total | 38 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Biomarkers
Also in Biomarkers
150 studies in the library are filed under Biomarkers with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Biomarkers hub.